If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The point was characterizing women by terms aimed at the fact they are women. You don't like it aimed at Sarah, but it's okay aimed at Meg. I don't think it's okay either way.

It's definitely okay if the candidate supports the legalized killing of 1.6 million children each year before they're born. If Meg Whitman was a man, then I would have used the term, 'bastard' instead. Lowlifes deserve the labels they get. And Barack Obama is such a lowlife, I would get banned if I were to describe him with the terms that I really want to.

If the only thing that the Republican Party stood for was cutting taxes and shrinking government, and they totally abandoned the social issues, then I couldn't possibly see myself voting Republican anymore. I couldn't vote DemocRAT either, so I would probably not vote at all.

It's the social conservatives in the Republican Party that make me side with Republicans most of the time. If the Republicans abandon the social issues, the message becomes too hollow for me to even consider. Don't get me wrong, I like having my taxes cut and I like my government small. But that alone just isn't enough to get me to vote Republican.

A government that is kept within Constitutional constraints lacks the power to impose social engineering. The feds would have no say on abortion (which would make it a state issue again, which means that the legislatures would actually have to resolve it to the satisfaction of the electorate, but given the fifty different electorates, that's also going to be an issue). By the same token, the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" set don't understand that big government isn't wrong because it's expensive, it's wrong because it erodes the values necessary for representative government. Policies that redefine families or otherwise destroy non-governmental institutions weaken the ability of the people to govern themselves without outside interference.

A government that is kept within Constitutional constraints lacks the power to impose social engineering. The feds would have no say on abortion (which would make it a state issue again, which means that the legislatures would actually have to resolve it to the satisfaction of the electorate, but given the fifty different electorates, that's also going to be an issue). By the same token, the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" set don't understand that big government isn't wrong because it's expensive, it's wrong because it erodes the values necessary for representative government. Policies that redefine families or otherwise destroy non-governmental institutions weaken the ability of the people to govern themselves without outside interference.

That makes perfect sense. Mikey's not gonna like it.

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken

It's definitely okay if the candidate supports the legalized killing of 1.6 million children each year before they're born. If Meg Whitman was a man, then I would have used the term, 'bastard' instead. Lowlifes deserve the labels they get. And Barack Obama is such a lowlife, I would get banned if I were to describe him with the terms that I really want to.

He's a numbnuts... like the kind FMJ Gunnery Sergeant Hartman ranted about -potential casualties training in his barracks.
:D

I have always thought that the recounts were not as much about changing the results as about finding out how the Dems' own voter fraud was counteracted and, perhaps, getting Soros voting machines in...